Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    The word "intrinsic" means "belonging naturally to," "essential or inherent to." So you're asking basically "What gave pleasure its worth which belongs naturally and essentially to it?" The question doesn't make any sense if you accept the meaning of the word "intrinsic." Why assume that there most be a worth-bestower that's external to the thing with worth?
    That is the point Jim, you are simply making an assertion. That there is an intrinsic property to pleasure or morals apart from "worth-bestower" as you say. I see no reason to accept that.

    I believe that God is the basis of consciousness, maybe that He is even "consciousness itself." And I also believe that consciousness is an intrinsically good thing. But why does all that necessarily mean that God creates the goodness of consciousness? Why can't it just be good in itself? Why can't it just be good to be healthy as opposed to sick? How does that diminish God's power?
    You are suggesting that there is an external moral standard that God needs to live up to. You are suggesting that something other than God's nature is the ultimate ethical criterion.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      That may be how morality first developed among early humans but if that was all there is to morality, it would be a topic for anthropologists only and not for other fields. To reduce a question to the context it first developed in is to commit the 'genetic fallacy.'

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
      Not a genetic fallacy at all, and it is based on archaeological and paleontological evidence. Human nature is not known to change since humans were first known to be human including Neanderthals. They had families, communities and tribal hierarchies, reverently buried their dead, healed and cared for their injured and sick, executed offenders, and wore decorative jewelry. We have Stone Age cultures today that function much the way that the evidence demonstrates that Neolithic cultures functioned in terms of morals and ethics throughout human history. Even when go to the more primitive forms of primates they had rules and punished offenders and mourned the lose of their kind. This demonstrates that morals and ethics evolved and are apart of our inherent social nature.

      You are trying to make a distinction that in reality does not exist. I do not believe you can draw a line where there is a difference in whether morality and ethics existed in the history of humanity.

      I will acknowledge the evolution of morals and ethics, which is part of the belief in the Baha'i Faith that our spiritual nature evolved over time through progressive Revelation and reflected in evolution of morals and ethics.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-03-2019, 03:38 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        That may be how morality first developed among early humans but if that was all there is to morality, it would be a topic for anthropologists only and not for other fields.
        There is no good reason to think that there is more to “morality” than that of an evolved survival mechanism for social animals such as us. What are these “other fields” to which you refer?
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          There is no good reason to think that there is more to “morality” than that of an evolved survival mechanism for social animals such as us. What are these “other fields” to which you refer?
          According to whom?

          Are you sure you haven't bought into an ontology, whose principles inhibit your ability to reason beyond its rather limited epistemological purview? Methinks you have.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Zara View Post
            According to whom?

            Are you sure you haven't bought into an ontology, whose principles inhibit your ability to reason beyond its rather limited epistemological purview? Methinks you have.
            Methinks your buying into an 'argument from ignorance.' The present evidence is all we have objectively is that our morals and ethics are evolved survival mechanisms for social animals, and our behavior is present in primitive evolve forms in other species like primates, sea animals and elephants.

            The question remains What are those 'other fields' to which you refer to?' There, of course, may be other 'causes' for our morals and ethics, but what evidence is there for these other causes?
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-23-2019, 07:07 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Methinks your buying into an 'argument from ignorance.' The present evidence is all we have objectively is that our morals and ethics are evolved survival mechanisms for social animals, and our behavior is present in primitive evolve forms in other species like primates, sea animals and elephants.

              The question remains What are those 'other fields' to which you refer to?' There, of course, may be other 'causes' for our morals and ethics, but what evidence is there for these other causes?
              The present evidence, according to premises and criterion I see no reason to agree to - frankly. We have evidence that we are creatures with feelings, reason and higher aesthetic faculties. What those faculties permit is well beyond any necessary evolutionary reductionism or instrumentalism.

              We have a second nature - that nature is not forced to be some evolutionary necessity or causally constructed evidential demand. Some people are called to higher forms of life - they make demands on us.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                The present evidence, according to premises and criterion I see no reason to agree to - frankly. We have evidence that we are creatures with feelings, reason and higher aesthetic faculties. What those faculties permit is well beyond any necessary evolutionary reductionism or instrumentalism.
                I am curious. How do you know this?

                Originally posted by Zara View Post
                We have a second nature - that nature is not forced to be some evolutionary necessity or causally constructed evidential demand. Some people are called to higher forms of life - they make demands on us.
                Or this...?
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  I am curious. How do you know this?
                  I explored my lived experience. Then I read some pretty difficult books.

                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Or this...?
                  Another book, more lived experience.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                    The present evidence, according to premises and criterion I see no reason to agree to - frankly. We have evidence that we are creatures with feelings, reason and higher aesthetic faculties. What those faculties permit is well beyond any necessary evolutionary reductionism or instrumentalism.
                    Actually you are over extending the known evidence as 'What those faculties permit is well beyond any necessary evolutionary reductionism or instrumentalism.' There is no known evidence that would support the nature of being human is 'well beyond' any such subjective claim.

                    We have a second nature - that nature is not forced to be some evolutionary necessity or causally constructed evidential demand. Some people are called to higher forms of life - they make demands on us.
                    There is no known evolutionary necessity or causality constructed evidential demand, whatever that means. As worded this too mechanistically or deterministically expressed

                    The subjective anecdotal assumption that 'some people?' are called to higher forms of life requires the subjective claim that 'they (who ever they may be)' makes demands on us.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-23-2019, 07:17 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Actually you are over extending the known evidence as 'What those faculties permit is well beyond any necessary evolutionary reductionism or instrumentalism.' There is no known evidence that would support the nature of being human is 'well beyond' any such subjective claim.
                      What is 'known' evidence? It's called transcendence - there's nothing mystical about it. It requires an imagination, one that can function beyond brutish imperatives. Ohh, like, you know, anyone with more than half a brain. However, those that function on just half a brain, tend to come up with a reductive explanation of Being and its limitations. Then demand that we, that again, can function with more, must due to their criterion, reduce our experience to their half-baked model.
                      Last edited by Zara; 06-23-2019, 07:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                        What is 'known' evidence? It's called transcendence - there's nothing mystical about it. It requires an imagination, one that can function beyond brutish imperatives. Ohh, like, you know, anyone with half a brain. However, those that function on just half a brain, tend to come up with a reductive explanation of Being and its limitations. Then demand that we, that again, can function with more, must due to their criterion, reduce our experience to their half-baked model.
                        Transcendence is not equivalent to evidence. It is subjective experience beyond the normal and physical by definition. Yes, much of what is called transcendent is mystical, and you are correct it often requires imagination.

                        Science is not based on brutish imperatives. 'Known evidence' is simply by definition the objective verifiable evidence
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-23-2019, 07:50 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Transcendence is not equivalent to evidence. It is subjective experience beyond the normal and physical by definition. Yes, much of what is called transcendent is mystical, and you are correct it often requires imagination.
                          Nor is evidence equivalent to empirical findings. I am also using transcendence as a term, the clue was the capitalised Being.

                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Science is not based on brutish imperitives
                          Isn't it? The ontology it uses to justify itself, tends to be reductive to a point.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                            Nor is evidence equivalent to empirical findings. I am also using transcendence as a term, the clue was the capitalised Being.
                            Terms need to be defined. If it is not as defined in the English language as such, use another term.

                            Empirical findings are based objective verifiable evidence, and not equivalent to evidence. Empirical findings are always subject to change when new evidence becomes available.

                            Isn't it? The ontology it uses to justify itself, tends to be reductive to a point.
                            No it is not, and you demanding an extreme mechanistic view of science.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Terms need to be defined. If it is not as defined in the English language as such, use another term.
                              This is the philosophy forum? Not the street, right?

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Empirical findings are based objective verifiable evidence, and not equivalent to evidence. Empirical findings are always subject to change when new evidence becomes available.
                              Empirical findings are the evidence, that evidence is the checked against the predictions of some epistemic model, through which we understand ourselves. Of course the whole setup has a background ontology which I disagree with.

                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              No it is not, and you demanding an extreme mechanistic view of science.
                              Really, well, if you can explain what part of the non-mechanisic universe is open to scientific enquirery, and by what method, I would be agog.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                                This is the philosophy forum? Not the street, right?
                                If you agree with this improve your posts and spelling.

                                [quote]
                                Empirical findings are the evidence, that evidence is the checked against the predictions of some epistemic model, through which we understand ourselves. Of course the whole setup has a background ontology which I disagree with.

                                Bluntly no, back up and review English and science. empirical findings are not evidence, and they are based on evidence.

                                Really, well, if you can explain what part of the non-mechanisic universe is open to scientific enquirery, and by what method, I would be agog.
                                incoherent.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X